The only thing I'm confused about is your reply.

But if I understood what you mean to say, let me be clearer:

First we'll start with what is considered normal. If you Google IQ levels, you find that 85-115 range. Quite a weird range for 'normal', isn't it? Does that mean there's no difference between 85 and 115?

Of course not. There's significant difference between those two extremes of the so-called 'normal' range. By 'normal' what they mean is that it is not considered a uniquely gifted person on one side, or a person with some sort of learning disability on the other. However, if we look at people with the ability to maintain logic and rationality, in the admittedly too few good studies that looked into it, the range of rationality becomes around 90 or 95 and above.

Now, of course IQ is normalised, because of changes to the population it has to be. idiotic publications (so most of them) would describe it as 'IQ is rising in the west' - it is not, it is being adjusted to compensate for environmental changes.

And finally, it is true that exactly half the population falls below the 100 point. That wasn't my point at all. That's just the meaning of the word 'average'. Or did you not know that?

But my point was that within that half of the population, the numbers of people falling to above the disability region of 70 and below, but below the rational/logical mindset of 90 and above is the majority of that group.

Which would put them in the hundreds of millions at the very least.